I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#9,401
john curl said:
This is because most here do not understand how relays are compromised, that are used in the test box. Certainly very few people here, except perhaps Simon7000. The metalmen have never previously heard of Holm, the physicists think that Alps pots are audio nirvana, etc. I can't expect any more from such a resource of individuals.
Click to expand...


There were no relays in ww comparator -please read the patent.
But regarding the releys - if a preamp uses relays for input switching they compromise the sound so much that one can use cheap RS wires?
 
#9,403
janneman said:
This is nonsense. Someone 'suggests', out of the blue, that a switch hides cable differences. Since we don't know whether there ARE cable differences, and what they are, and what switch it is, this is pure unresponsible speculation.
And now it is turned into an accusation that it is done on purpose to hide cable differences. Do you guys have no self respect??

jd
Click to expand...

Quoted below is the post to which I referred and which drew your comment above when I posted as follows:

It was mentioned by someone in the past couple of days that a certain switching box (by design?) altered the character of both cables in a comparison.

I assumed that this was to avoid the character/attributes of a cable which was well known to the listener being recognized.

To me this is a total nonsense as if the switching unit in any way masks or alters the cable's signature traits, then the test is null and void of value.

Your reaction is not surprising! There are of course many reasons for your experience.

There is no accusation in this post, inferred or otherwise. What is inferred is that if the box had been designed to alter the cable's signature sound that this may have been intentional so that the cables which are well known will have no unfair advantage in comparison with other cables. [Any such imposition clearly would make such testing invalid].


Panicos K said:
Terry,both cables's "sound" will be altered.What I meant was that the listener will take advantage of the sound of his own cable because he knows it better than the other one on test,and try to spot the difference between the two.If sound of both cables is altered,then the listener looses his point of reference.It is as if he listens to two unknown cables,contaminated by the additions of the two extra cables,switches,connectors etc.....It is very likely that through such a switching box,differences will become even smaller,even vanish.One test with and one without a switching box would perhaps be more enlightening?
Click to expand...
 
#9,406
john curl said:
Self respect, in banning Curly? That took a great deal of intellectual effort.
I have heard the problems with AB switching MYSELF, along with 3 other audio reviewers who evaluated it separately.
For example: One reviewer's opinion about the Spiegel box. This is JUST one of 4.

' The Absolute Sound' Vol 4 #13 1978, p 6
"JWC reports: 'With the Spiegel box on-line, I sure enough couldn't hear any difference between two preamps (the Van Alstine and the Levinson ML-1), even when I confined my switching to the two KNOWN positions. ...
The reason for this state of affairs was soon painfully obvious. Connecting the ML-1 directly into the system, rather than through the Spiegel box showed quite clearly that the box had been literally ruining the sound quality.
The box constricted the dynamic range, shaved off any sense of real highs and lows, and wrecked high frequency transient response. The box also took out all sense of air in the upper midrange and upper bass, and caused a serious of imaging specificity..."
AMEN!
Click to expand...

Let me sit back. You take this seriously, do you?

jd
 
#9,408
john curl said:
I had the Spiegel box in my living room for a time. I could barely tell the difference between a JC-2 (ML-1) and a Dyna Pas3X. Therefore, I should have resigned trying to make better audio quality, on the spot, just like Dave Spiegel and Tom Holman did.
Click to expand...

... or make a PAS3X with a JC label and made lots of money. You most probably would still make component of year 😉
Did you notice Tom Hollman makes obscene lots of money and has millions of people listen to his products, at home and in cinema's? I wonder where he went wrong...

jd
 
#9,409
It is my job to design audio equipment to the highest audio quality that I can. I use both test equipment (I have a newer version of what Syn08 uses as his avatar on my test bench for, and it cost me a months pay to get it), and seasoned listeners to develop my designs. That is why I progressed from the Dyna Pas3X, to the Levinson JC-2 (ML-1), to the JC-80 and finally to the Blowtorch. If I had to use the Spiegel box, it would be useless for me to do so, in fact, my later designs cost MUCH MORE and have FEWER features. I still design multiple designs, even today, as so far, my reputation for making good sounding designs remains, BECAUSE my head is not in the sand about what can be heard, and what cannot be heard.
 
#9,411
It is always amazing to me that the letters JC are my fundamental attribute. It is true that it was put on the original JC-1 and JC-2 by agreement with Mark Levinson. However, many here attribute magic to its use as a sales gimmick rather than anything under hood, so to speak. Maybe, those who believe this, should stick to mid fi.
 
#9,415
john curl said:
It is my job to design audio equipment to the highest audio quality that I can. I use both test equipment (I have a newer version of what Syn08 uses as his avatar on my test bench for, and it cost me a months pay to get it), and seasoned listeners to develop my designs. That is why I progressed from the Dyna Pas3X, to the Levinson JC-2 (ML-1), to the JC-80 and finally to the Blowtorch. If I had to use the Spiegel box, it would be useless for me to do so, in fact, my later designs cost MUCH MORE and have FEWER features. I still design multiple designs, even today, as so far, my reputation for making good sounding designs remains, BECAUSE my head is not in the sand about what can be heard, and what cannot be heard.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to stake your credibility in the audio world on the audibility of cables? If what some people are saying about it not making much of a difference is true then that doesn't effect you at all it just implies maybe some designs and precautions are superfluous.
 
#9,419
janneman said:
This is nonsense. Someone 'suggests', out of the blue, that a switch hides cable differences. Since we don't know whether there ARE cable differences, and what they are, and what switch it is, this is pure unresponsible speculation.
jd
Click to expand...

Jan,

Here we disagree. Just about everyone can measure the RLC differences. I have pointed out a method that may actually measure the non-ohmic or other audio interconnect properties. By that same test I get results that show switches are not as good as the cables for passing signal. If one could design a switch that measures much better than the cables then that would be a valid test method. But assuming the switch is neutral is probably not a good assumption. In not yet public work I have been looking at switches, there is a long way to go before I have any indication as to how to improve or even rate current methods of switching low level audio signals.

Of course the actual issue is can people hear those RLC or distortion differences? Yes, randomly blaming switches without specifics is silly. Silly may be about as good as bits of this thread get. On these I think we agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom